Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 1 decade ago

How would mandating this law be a violation of the constitution.?

Mandating all new construction(residential, commercial, industrial) to include a subsidizing solar system.

7 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer


  • 1 decade ago

    If mandated by state or local authorities, the law would not be unconstitutional.

    If mandated by the federal government, such a law would encroach upon states' rights and probably violate the 10th amendment to the Constitution. The 10th amendment guarantees that all powers not specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution are the domain of the people or the states. Building codes have historically been a matter of state law, not federal law.

    Such a law would be considered constitutional if the U.S. could successfully argue that the mandate falls under the federal power to govern interstate commerce, as granted under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. The law would have to pass the Rehnquist Test (named for the Chief Justice who established it in United States vs. Morrison in 1995). The test requires that this type of federal law regulate only channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and/or action that substantially affects interstate commerce. It would be up to the federal government to proove that the law meets one or more of these requirements to be constitutional.

  • Doc
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Your use of the word "subsidizing" throws me. I'm not sure how it applies to this question. If you are asking if Congress were to pass a bill requiring all new construction (of homes and business) to incorporate a solar power collection system, would this be a breach of our constitution? No more so than requiring that all new construction meet certain building codes.

  • 1 decade ago

    I assume that you mean to ask whether that law would be unConstitutional if passed by the United States Congress. So long as the Congress makes minimal findings that solar power is related to interstate commerce, it would not be unconstitional on its face.

    I can see some circumstances where that law might act as a taking that would require compensation. For example, if the specifics of the law required that the solar panels be on the ground and that nothing could block them, then that would essentially be taking land for public use. But it would be a stretch.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Jadis
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Not really an answer to your question, so I'll probably get reported, but when we build our home, we want to use solar as much as possible. We also burn wood for heat as much as possible and will continue to do so when we build. It's a renewable resource, and I am fortunate enough to live in an area where we can buy a firewood permit for very cheap and cut our own. Lots of work, but the last time the fuel guys came, our place (which is old and drafty) only needed 28 gallons of heating fuel. Gotta love that!!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    By forcing construction to abide by a particular type of system it violates those engaged in commerce from choosing.

    Mandates are a form of economic fascism.

    Plan and simple violation of the commerce clause.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Such a law doesn't appear to be unconstitutional; but it has almost no chance of making it through Congress. Lobbyists from special interest groups would certainly kill it.

    It would also be very unpopular with most Americans, since it would probably add several thousand to the cost of a home.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.